Darwingate

A key question of the day is whether we can trust the scientific establishment to be honest in their dealings with the general public. The widespread deceit involved in selling the global warming thesis has brought such concerns to a head.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Scientists are only human. Objectivity may be a noble aspiration; empiricism a worthy goal – but recent scandals illustrate the propensity for large-scale manipulation and misdirection by the very people supposedly devoted to intellectual integrity. [1.]

B. "A week ago, hackers released 160 mb of emails, data, and computer code from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The data extends back a decade, and rather clearly documents an astonishing pattern of manipulation of evidence, concealment of doubts about whether the validity of global warming, destruction of data not favorable to global warming, fantasizing violence against prominent climate skeptic scientists, and a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. The data reveal extensive scientific misconduct and even criminal fraud in the top echelons of the pro-global warming scientific community. [2.]

- It's my opinion (and I think it's backed up by Terabytes of evidence) that a similar scandal has been (and is) going on with regards to Darwinism.
There has been a huge amount of manipulation of evidence; as every story (on the subject of origins, etc.) in the popular media is given a favorable Darwinian spin.

There has been massive concealment of doubt. The popular press (e.g. the science magazines) refuses to allow doubt into the picture; scientists who do doubt keep quiet and are told to keep quiet.

There has been massive destruction of data; in that any data not supporting the Darwinian picture are thrown out. (e.g. any inconvenient dates of rocks or fossils)

There is massive abuse directed against skeptics of Darwinism within the scientific establishment. (e.g. emails expressing pure hate, denials of tenure, firings, etc.)

There has been a long campaign to keep skeptics from access to journals. One could go on; the similarities are massive.

- The notion that 'science' (i.e. scientists) is a neutral business is one of the great myths of our day. It's as neutral as grants from governments and businesses. It's as neutral as politics, and as neutral as human nature. The people who run PC science are committed enemies of anything creationist; and they've shown themselves willing to use any underhanded strategy on the book in their campaign to defend materialism and discredit creation.

- In our day the field known as science has been invaded by all kinds of non-scientific interests and agendas. We're no longer merely talking about things we can measure (e.g. speed of light) and describe, but about how people view the world, how they view other people and society. What happens is that political and philosophical views get confused with science; and deliberately confused in many cases. (This leads to calling what you like scientific, and what you don't like non-scientific, or even anti-scientific.) A goodly portion of what passes for science is no more scientific than snake oil. (e.g. evolutionary psychology)

- Does anyone imagine that the people involved in 'Climategate' would be honest about the Origins issue? (I sometimes wonder if anyone is.) The sad truth is that the more deeply people care about something the more likely they are to lie about it.

Notes;
1. Can Scientists Conspire to Mislead? Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/26/2009
2. Chris Mooney turns a climate trick - Evolution News
- an important article.
3. The PC Left has tried to sweep all this under the rug. Writers like Charlie Stross dismissed it as trivial, while Peter Watts claimed it was a non-story, merely the way science is done. ("There is none that telleth the truth, no not one.") Apparently things are too serious for anyone to be concerned about honesty.
- I remember this from reading Charlie's blog. [antipope.org]